# 5100
The IOM (Institute of Medicine) released a lengthy report today giving their recommendations regarding the Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI) of what a lot of doctors have touted as practically a miracle supplement; Vitamin D.
The IOM’s Food and Nutrition Board substantially increased their daily recommendations for Vitamin D, but they fell well short of endorsing the high daily doses that have become in vogue over the past decade.
Given the popularity of this supplement, particularly among alternative and complementary medicine practitioners, I expect we’ll see a fair amount of controversy and discourse over these findings.
The entire 999 page report is available online for free, or may be ordered as PDF files, or as a hardback from the National Academies Press.
Luckily, for those of us with time only to deal with the condensed version, we have some alternatives.
First Dick Knox of NPR, has a story called:
Medical Panel: Don't Go Overboard On Vitamin D
by Richard Knox
We’ve also a press release from the IOM.
Nov. 30, 2010
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
WASHINGTON — Most Americans and Canadians up to age 70 need no more than 600 international units (IUs) of vitamin D per day to maintain health, and those 71 and older may need as much as 800 IUs, says a new report from the Institute of Medicine. The amount of calcium needed ranges, based on age, from 700 to 1,300 milligrams per day, according to the report, which updates the nutritional reference values known as Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs) for these interrelated nutrients.
The report's recommendations take into account nearly 1,000 published studies as well as testimony from scientists and stakeholders. A large amount of evidence, which formed the basis of the new intake values, confirms the roles of calcium and vitamin D in promoting skeletal growth and maintenance and the amounts needed to avoid poor bone health. The committee that wrote the report also reviewed hundreds of studies and reports on other possible health effects of vitamin D, such as protection against cancer, heart disease, autoimmune diseases, and diabetes. While these studies point to possibilities that warrant further investigation, they have yielded conflicting and mixed results and do not offer the evidence needed to confirm that vitamin D has these effects. Rigorous trials that yield consistent results are vital for reaching conclusions, as past experiences have shown. Vitamin E, for example, was believed to protect against heart disease before further studies disproved it.
"There is abundant science to confidently state how much vitamin D and calcium people need," said committee chair Catharine Ross, professor and Dorothy Foehr Huck Chair, department of nutritional sciences, Pennsylvania State University, University Park. "We scrutinized the evidence, looking for indications of beneficial effects at all levels of intake. Amounts higher than those specified in this report are not necessary to maintain bone health."
The IOM has also released a relatively short Report Brief, which may be accessed at the following link.
Report Brief
- Released: 11/30/2010
- Download: PDF
Dietary Reference Intakes for Calcium and Vitamin D
Calcium and vitamin D are two essential nutrients long known for their role in bone health. Over the last ten years, the public has heard conflicting messages about other benefits of these nutrients—especially vitamin D—and also about how much calcium and vitamin D they need to be healthy.
To help clarify this issue, the U. S. and Canadian governments asked the Institute of Medicine (IOM) to assess the current data on health outcomes associated with calcium and vitamin D. The IOM tasked a committee of experts with reviewing the evidence, as well as updating the nutrient reference values, known as Dietary Reference Intakes (DRIs). These values are used widely by government agencies, for example, in setting standards for school meals or specifying the nutrition label on foods. Over time, they have come to be used by health professionals to counsel individuals about dietary intake.
And finally, we’ve this handy chart summarizing the new DRI recommendations for both Vitamin D & Calcium.
While this report will undoubtedly upset a lot of people who have embraced high dose Vitamin D as beneficial, it is important to remember that this isn’t necessarily the final word on the subject.
This simply represents the IOM’s best judgment based on the evidence available to date.
There are studies underway that could conceivably alter these recommendations sometime in the future.
Good science takes time, and is constantly evolving.
Until then, however, the IOM finds that the existing evidence of health benefits from high daily doses of Vitamin D remains inconsistent and inconclusive.
Full Disclosure: While I don’t promote Vitamin D in this column, I have blogged on several flu-related Vitamin D studies over the years, Including:
Study: Vitamin D And Flu-Like Illnesses
Scientists To Study Vitamin D And The Flu
Vitamin D To Ward Off Flu?
And . . . on the advice of my doctor I’ve been taking 2000-3000 IU/Day of Vitamin D for a couple of years now. I am pleased to find that this falls short of the IOM’s Maximum daily intake.
Admittedly, I have no direct evidence of benefit, but for the time being (and since I have at least a year’s supply in the cupboard) I have no plans of changing this regimen.
Not a recommendation or an endorsement. Just what I plan to do.
Related Post:
Widget by [ Iptek-4u ]